I giggled...

[Niferbelle]

...then I signed the petition.

http://www.climatenamechange.org/#

[Vekseid]

I'm afraid this gives them more attention than they deserve.

At this point, if someone denies human-caused climate change, either they are being willfully ignorant, or someone is paying them to hold that opinion.

[Valthazar]

Climate change is real, but this petition is a terrible idea.

One can reasonably make the case that by renaming hurricanes as certain politican figures, that the World Meteorological Organization would be espousing a distinct political agenda behind their science.  While this might certainly already be the case, the reason we respect scientific organizations is because we consider them to be the source for raw, pure scientific data, upon which we can make our own decisions about policy.

It undermines the cause more than anything.

[Robelwell202]

At this point, if someone denies human-caused climate change, either they are being willfully ignorant, or someone is paying them to hold that opinion.

If I may be so bold, sir, this statement gives me the chills.  I happen to NOT subscribe to the Global Warming/Climate Change myth, and by the standard in your statement, it would place me in something that I know I'm not (Willfully ignorant).

While I'm reserving my statement about how insulting this might be seen, I do wish that you'd rethink this.  There are other opinions out there, which are just as informed, if not more informed.  I won't go into the specifics, but I would ask that you reconsider.

With respect,

R

[Niferbelle]

I think the overwhelming scientific consensus trumps opinion. I'm not drawing any conclusions about climate-change deniers but I'm going to trust the experts, thank you.

And it will never happen, ValthazarElite which is why I felt safe signing it, and no, I really wouldn't want it to for the very reason you listed but it was funny and somewhat cathartic and that was sort of my way of expressing my appreciation for a good laugh.   

[Iniquitous]

I am far from 'willfully ignorant'. I do not buy into the 'humans are causing global warming' bit. Why? Because the earth's climate is cyclic. We have had ice ages, mini ice ages and periods of 'warmer than normal'. Case in point: during the 11th century the English people were growing their own vineyards for wine. This was known as the Medieval Warming Period. It preceded the mini ice age of the Dark Ages. There is also the fact that 2013 is the solar maximum - the point when the sun is the hottest, so everything is heating up.

Do I believe humans have a hand in the warming up? Yes. Do I think we are the only (and greatest) cause? No. Not even close. I've done my reading on this, I've listened to both sides. I'm sorry, common sense (for me) says that we humans are not the greatest factor in these changes.

**edited to correct the year of the solar maximum**

[Valthazar]

Do I believe humans have a hand in the warming up? Yes. Do I think we are the only (and greatest) cause? No. Not even close. I've done my reading on this, I've listened to both sides. I'm sorry, common sense (for me) says that we humans are not the greatest factor in these changes.

**edited to correct the year of the solar maximum**

I have also researched this issue, and I agree with this statement.

Climate change is very real - but the concept that human beings are the primary, or even majority, drivers for this change is entirely inconclusive when you look at the research.  It is unfortunate that this issue is being used largely as a political tool nowadays.

[Zakharra]

I have also researched this issue, and I agree with this statement.

Climate change is very real - but the concept that human beings are the primary, or even majority, drivers for this change is entirely inconclusive when you look at the research.  It is unfortunate that this issue is being used largely as a political tool nowadays.

That's the problem I have with a lot of climate change supporters. They are adamant that humanity is the main or sole cause off it, and the proposed regulations supposed to fix it are pretty badly thought out; an example is the ethanol that is now required to be added to gasoline in the US. It's sent the price of corn shooting through the roof and doesn't make for clean burning and isn't good for engines The carbon tax seems like another boondoggle in the works. The proposals to fix the problem aren't exactly working.

[Oniya]

One major problem with the carbon tax is that companies can buy waivers.  As soon as you allow that, then the ones that eschew the expense of carbon-footprint-reducing measures start funneling that money into paying off those waivers, and you end up just as far behind.

[Rogue]

My own opinion is that, we shouldn't be polluting the environment, regardless of whether it causes global warming or not. I also agree with the cyclic theory and think that the world will eventually right itself one way or another, but I do also think that the amount of carbon we're producing isn't helping and won't help in letting the weather fix itself come the next mini or big ice age.

I'm also unsure about signing this petition because unfortunately politicians, despite the best efforts of our founding fathers to include well rounded men in the line up, is not made up of well rounded men. There are no scientists on the board and they're only in it to make money. Not only will this give science a political agenda, it will likely not give science a voice in the government when it is so woefully lacking, but make it the enemy... I can see both negative and positive aspects to this but can't coherently get all of my thoughts out right now as I have to leave. Will add more thoughts later. >.<

[Robelwell202]

What baffles me is, why does no one take the following fact into account?

Carbon dioxide is used by plants to create oxygen.  It's been proven, time and again, that plants in an environment rich in carbon dioxide create a higher amount of oxygen.  Also, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring, and not actually 'produced' (as in created out of nowhere).  Carbon, as an element, is what we're made of, and it exists all around us.

Considering that carbon-dioxide limitations would limit oxygen production, I find it ludicrous that this idea would actually have merit.

[Ebb]

What baffles me is, why does no one take the following fact into account?

Carbon dioxide is used by plants to create oxygen.  It's been proven, time and again, that plants in an environment rich in carbon dioxide create a higher amount of oxygen.  Also, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring, and not actually 'produced' (as in created out of nowhere).  Carbon, as an element, is what we're made of, and it exists all around us.

Considering that carbon-dioxide limitations would limit oxygen production, I find it ludicrous that this idea would actually have merit.

When people speak of carbon dioxide and climate change, they're referring to the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere as a result of carbon that was previously locked into fossil fuels being released by the burning process to add to the C02 in the atmosphere. A secondary concern is that reduction of forests lowers the capability of removing that CO2 from the atmosphere through the normal cycle.

While it is true that carbon is not really being created or destroyed, clearly carbon that is in the air in the form of C02 will affect the climate in a way that carbon bound into coal or oil and left in the ground will not. This is not really a controversial part of the discussion.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

[Avis habilis]

... the concept that human beings are the primary, or even majority, drivers for this change is entirely inconclusive when you look at the research.

Not even close: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/what-look-tomorrows-new-ipcc-report.

[Valthazar]

Not even close: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/what-look-tomorrows-new-ipcc-report.

This isn't isn't as cut and dry an issue as is presented in mainstream outlets.  I am not interested in getting into a scientific discussion about about each perspective, because that really isn't my area of specialization or interest, but perhaps someone else in this thread will be more interested.

Climate change is very real.  Climate change is also a powerful tool for galvanizing political agendas - regardless of political party.

If we accept that government is working for special interests, and we also accept that government is working with lobbyists for private corporations, we should not be so quick to assume that scientific leadership is immune from these very same lobbies.

I hold pure science in the highest regard, but for better or for worse, that isn't always what we are getting with many of these organizations, such as the IPCC.

[Avis habilis]

If we accept that government is working for special interests, and we also accept that government is working with lobbyists for private corporations, we should not be so quick to assume that scientific leadership is immune from these very same lobbies.

Yes, it has been shown that denialists have been taking cash from extraction industries to obfuscate the connection between industry & climate change in exactly the same way Big Tobacco's pet scientists insisted there was controversy about whether smoking was linked to lung disease & cancer. That was a lie too.

[Valthazar]

Yes, it has been shown that denialists have been taking cash from extraction industries to obfuscate the connection between industry & climate change in exactly the same way Big Tobacco's pet scientists insisted there was controversy about whether smoking was linked to lung disease & cancer. That was a lie too.

Rather than emphasize a partisan divide, realize that we are essentially saying the same thing here - which is, we need to have pure, unbridled scientific data from which to make decisions.

Politicians who advocate and deny man-made climate change - both Democrats and Republicans - are actively courted by lobbyists.

You gave a good example of Republican lobbying, similar to Democrat lobbying with wind and solar companies.  The Republicans and Democrats are simply two sides of the same coin.

[Avis habilis]

... we need to have pure, unbridled scientific data from which to make decisions.

We have it. Wind & solar companies aren't bankrolling the studies that demonstrate a connection between human activity & climate change. Extraction industries are bankrolling the handful that deny it.

[Ebb]

Rather than emphasize a partisan divide, realize that we are essentially saying the same thing here - which is, we need to have pure, unbridled scientific data from which to make decisions.

Politicians who advocate and deny man-made climate change - both Democrats and Republicans - are actively courted by lobbyists.

You gave a good example of Republican lobbying, similar to Democrat lobbying with wind and solar companies.  The Republicans and Democrats are simply two sides of the same coin.

Unbiased, pure scientific consensus on the impact of human activity on climate change is as near to 100% as anything in the realm of actual science can get. Wikipedia is not a primary source, of course, but there are an extensive list of references on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.  See in particular the section titled "Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing", focusing on the lists of concurring, non-committal and dissenting scientific organizations.

You are postulating a false equivalence. The scientific studies that have been extensively cross-examined come from reputable scientific bodies located around the world. This is not a US Democrat vs. US Republican issue, and to frame it in those terms is to ignore the much bigger picture.

[Valthazar]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you all are saying.  I am sure there is merit to these studies, and perhaps now it is even becoming clear that humans have played a large role in climate change.  If I were researching this purely from a scientific view, I would agree with you both.

But suggesting that this hasn't becoming adversely politicized, both by Republicans and Democrats, is missing the mark.  This thread itself was based on a campaign to politicize scientific research.  It is because of this unfortunate reality that I am cautiously skeptical about this issue.  Certainly, political 'deniers' have political motives in distorting the presentation of scientific data, as do political advocates of man-made climate change.

But yes, on an empirical level, I see what you are both saying.

[smokindriver]

Taking a minute to state my opinion.

When I was younger it was all about global cooling and holes in the ozone. 

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government and give up freon gas.

Now it is global warming man made

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government

Both studies were primarily financed by the government costing billions in research grants to prove the hypothesis true and they did.


My opinion:  Men (man kind) does a lot of stuff that should be addressed and dealt with but in a reasonable manner.  In 7000 BC, you could walk from France to Ireland and not get your feet wet.  The global warming melted ice caps and the sea level rose to where it has been during current times.

I've been sailing in Idaho in lakes that are over a thousand feet deep that used to be glaciers.  They melted. 

My brother is a forester and tells me that there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago due to planting and managing forests.  These are thriving due to carbon dioxide. 

Why is it that if I start to build a house and don't put up silt fences I will be fined thousands of dollars to keep a little dirt out of a creek.  But a farmer can plow a thousand acres right next to a river and then fertilize it and be exempt from any regulations?  Fines increase money for government.

The loudest voices for "man made" global warming are in the UN because all of the third world countries want to receive compensation from the developed countries that caused the drought in their country.

We've had hurricanes, tornados, droughts and floods all through history but if there is a profit to be made we should blame it on climate change.  I say that if man is causing global warming that we should open a couple holes in the ozone and balance it out.

Lets focus on littering, pollution and the wind farms that are killing all the bird.  Who thought that they might use the strongest winds to choose their migratory patterns?

[Ebb]

Taking a minute to state my opinion.

When I was younger it was all about global cooling and holes in the ozone. 

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government and give up freon gas.

Now it is global warming man made

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government

Both studies were primarily financed by the government costing billions in research grants to prove the hypothesis true and they did.


My opinion:  Men (man kind) does a lot of stuff that should be addressed and dealt with but in a reasonable manner.  In 7000 BC, you could walk from France to Ireland and not get your feet wet.  The global warming melted ice caps and the sea level rose to where it has been during current times.

I've been sailing in Idaho in lakes that are over a thousand feet deep that used to be glaciers.  They melted. 

My brother is a forester and tells me that there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago due to planting and managing forests.  These are thriving due to carbon dioxide. 

Why is it that if I start to build a house and don't put up silt fences I will be fined thousands of dollars to keep a little dirt out of a creek.  But a farmer can plow a thousand acres right next to a river and then fertilize it and be exempt from any regulations?  Fines increase money for government.

The loudest voices for "man made" global warming are in the UN because all of the third world countries want to receive compensation from the developed countries that caused the drought in their country.

We've had hurricanes, tornados, droughts and floods all through history but if there is a profit to be made we should blame it on climate change.  I say that if man is causing global warming that we should open a couple holes in the ozone and balance it out.

Lets focus on littering, pollution and the wind farms that are killing all the bird.  Who thought that they might use the strongest winds to choose their migratory patterns?

In situations like this it is worth asking yourself "What evidence would need to be presented to me in order for me to change my opinion on this subject?"

If the answer is "There is no possible evidence that would cause me to make that change" then it is a safe bet that engaging in further conversation on the issue is unlikely to be productive on either side. If, on the other hand, there is evidence which would be sufficient then it is worth spelling out what that evidence is, and then responding accordingly if that evidence is presented to you.

Matters of scientific fact are not subject to any person's opinion.

[smokindriver]

In situations like this it is worth asking yourself "What evidence would need to be presented to me in order for me to change my opinion on this subject?"

If the answer is "There is no possible evidence that would cause me to make that change" then it is a safe bet that engaging in further conversation on the issue is unlikely to be productive on either side. If, on the other hand, there is evidence which would be sufficient then it is worth spelling out what that evidence is, and then responding accordingly if that evidence is presented to you.

Matters of scientific fact are not subject to any person's opinion.

I'm willing to look at, listen to and discuss all reasons theories and options.  That is why I stated, in my opinion, specific reasons for MY skepticism.  The fact that data and formulas continually are corrected or challenged by other scientists add more hesitancy to my blind following of this concept.  Deep throat said it best when he said to follow the money and that is my largest reason to pause and find the truth first.

My main point is that we have been undergoing significant climate change for the last ten thousand years.  (not to mention millions of years).  If we as humans all of a sudden say that the sun is not the main reason for change I think is giving ourselves too much credit. 

I read a Michael Creighton book a while a go.  (so long I don't remember the name) There were pages and pages of "scientific studies" sited as references for the book and they all went against the studies that you are quoting. 

So I guess that I'm saying that man-made global warming could be a factor in the environment but to say it is the only or even the main reason would go against my observations and sense of logic.  If you were willing to also open your mind and discuss the reasons that I mentioned as just a start then we could find a common starting place for a fair discussion.

[Ebb]

I'm willing to look at, listen to and discuss all reasons theories and options.  That is why I stated, in my opinion, specific reasons for MY skepticism.  The fact that data and formulas continually are corrected or challenged by other scientists add more hesitancy to my blind following of this concept.  Deep throat said it best when he said to follow the money and that is my largest reason to pause and find the truth first.

My main point is that we have been undergoing significant climate change for the last ten thousand years.  (not to mention millions of years).  If we as humans all of a sudden say that the sun is not the main reason for change I think is giving ourselves too much credit. 

I read a Michael Creighton book a while a go.  (so long I don't remember the name) There were pages and pages of "scientific studies" sited as references for the book and they all went against the studies that you are quoting. 

So I guess that I'm saying that man-made global warming could be a factor in the environment but to say it is the only or even the main reason would go against my observations and sense of logic.  If you were willing to also open your mind and discuss the reasons that I mentioned as just a start then we could find a common starting place for a fair discussion.

The book you're referring to is State of Fear. Michael Crichton had it published in 2004. It has been roundly criticized by climate scientists, including some of those whose research is quoted and, according to them, misused in the book. See here and here for two examples. The book won the 2006 Journalism Award from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. After some controversy the AAPG decided to rename their award to the "Geosciences in the Media" award.

Here's the thing. Climate science is a complicated thing. Any discussion of climate change by laymen (I'm assuming that you are not a scientist; I know I am not) can take place at one of two levels. Either we can rely upon the work of those who have studied the field and spent their lives doing research in the area, or we can try to evaluate the evidence based on common sense, our own experience and our own observations.

I would submit that taking the second path is, in this instance, wrong. There are many topics about which reasoned debate can occur between intelligent and educated folks based simply on personal experience and common sense. Complex scientific topics do not fall under this umbrella. I can no more debate the accuracy of various CO2 measuring techniques than I could debate the intricacies of string theory. I do not consider it a failing to admit that; I have spent my life and my career in another field, and there is no shame in admitting that my own knowledge of this particular area of scientific inquiry will never equal that of a scientist who has devoted their life to it.

Which leaves us with the first path, essentially an appeal to authority. While appealing to authority can be a fallacy in a debate, it is not necessarily so. What I find curious and disheartening among climate change deniers is the tendency to appeal to a very narrow set of authorities, thereby confirming their opinion that this is a valid method of discussion, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that humanocentric climate change is real and is in fact the overriding factor in overall climate change in the last century. How does one with a straight face refer to the "pages and pages" of scientific studies cited in work of fiction by a non-scientist while ignoring or trying to discredit the IPCC Assessment Reports, which have literally been signed off on by tens of thousands of the most reputable scientists in the world?

I can only surmise that those who take this route have come to a conclusion on their own a priori and then are engaged in an exercise of finding resources that fit their conclusion, rather than examining the voluminous evidence and analysis that has already taken place and then basing their conclusion on that. In other words, putting the cart before the horse. What I truly cannot fathom is why someone would take this approach, generally speaking. Certainly there are individual instances that are easily explainable by the profit motive. There are a fair number of people who derive financial benefit from denying the scientific consensus. I do not understand, though, why a person who is not being compensated for their time would think this way. I suspect it has something to do with a general distrust of the scientific enterprise, or possibly an unwillingness based on personal pride to accept that there are subjects in which a certain degree of training is required in order to register an educated opinion. Training which -- I again stress -- I do not personally have. And which I suspect that no one on this thread is in possession of either.

Are scientists infallible, or superhuman? Of course not. But they are the ones, by definition, who are the most well-versed in this area. If I need my car fixed I speak to a mechanic. If I want to know about gourmet food I speak to a chef. If I want to understand the effects of human activity on climate change, I speak to (or read) those who are experts in the field. I know of no other approach that makes sense.

I note that Vekseid has started a sticky thread on this topic, so further discussion should probably be directed there.

[Vekseid]

I'm willing to look at, listen to and discuss all reasons theories and options.  That is why I stated, in my opinion, specific reasons for MY skepticism.  The fact that data and formulas continually are corrected or challenged by other scientists add more hesitancy to my blind following of this concept.  Deep throat said it best when he said to follow the money and that is my largest reason to pause and find the truth first.

My main point is that we have been undergoing significant climate change for the last ten thousand years.  (not to mention millions of years).  If we as humans all of a sudden say that the sun is not the main reason for change I think is giving ourselves too much credit. 

I read a Michael Creighton book a while a go.  (so long I don't remember the name) There were pages and pages of "scientific studies" sited as references for the book and they all went against the studies that you are quoting. 

So I guess that I'm saying that man-made global warming could be a factor in the environment but to say it is the only or even the main reason would go against my observations and sense of logic.  If you were willing to also open your mind and discuss the reasons that I mentioned as just a start then we could find a common starting place for a fair discussion.

I think it's clear that the sticky isn't being read.

Human activity resembles the ten largest flood basalt provinces combined, if not more. There is not enough fossil fuels to sustain this for very long, thank whatever deity you may ascribe this too - but it's a moot point. Each individual igneous province left a telltale mark on the geological record, signifying immense climate change. 11 of 19 are correlated with mass extinctions.

And this, in addition to the "all-time record as far back as wee can see" oceanic data, is why I said what I did in my first post. It does not take very much effort to find how much carbon a basalt province ejects, nor does it take very much effort to find how much carbon humanity has been ejecting. You're given two and two, and if you don't tell me they sum to four I'm going to say something is up with you.

[Moraline]

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[107][108][109]


107.  ^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
108.  ^ Doran consensus article 2009
109.  ^ John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

~ quote from wiki with cited bibliographic sources

There's no credible evidence to the contrary. Humans are causing climate change.

Sure, if you don't trust the word of one scientist then I understand the skepticism, but there are literally thousands+ of the world's leading minds that say it's scientific fact and only a handful that are still sitting on the fence about it. The few that argue against it, almost always only argue against some aspect being the cause but even they still agree that Human civilization is the cause of climate change and that climate change is real.

It's simple - We(humans) are causing climate change as a result of a vast array of ways in which we are effecting the environment. Climate change isn't the single factor of any one specific thing we are doing, it's the sum total of all of what we are doing. Our living planet cannot sustain current human consumption and growth levels the way in which we are currently doing those things. 

We know what most of the worst things are that we are doing. Now we just need to find ways to change and do it quickly because all of our solutions so far will take a very long time to implement. When the house is burning down around you, you don't try to put it out with one cup of water at a time. You call in the fire department and take drastic action.  97% of all scientists say it's time to call in the fire department.  What are we waiting for?